APAME 2013 Tokyo
…APAME 2013 Tokyo Asia Pacific Association of Medical Editors (APAME) Convention 2013, Tokyo, Japan Date: 2–4 August 2013 Venue: Japan Medical Association (JMA) Auditorium, 2-28-16, Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8621, Japan COPE will hold two 90 minute sessions on the afternoon of 3 August during the annual congress of the…- Event
ISMPP webinar: Graphical Presentation of Data in Medical Publications
ISMPP invites you to attend this special 90-minute ISMPP University educational webinar, on Wednesday January 25 at 11 am ET/4 pm GMT. The webinar is free to all regardless of ISMPP membership status. Webinar attendees will learn from experts about how to integrate essential graphical presentation elements into medical publications. Figures, tables and images contribute to data interpretation… - Event
EASE Conference
A stimulating programme of plenary lectures (including Bernd Pulverer, EMBO Press, María del Carmen Ruíz Alcocer, AMERBAC, and Mark Patterson, eLife) and parallel sessions covering a range of topics on editing and managing journals, sex and… - Seminars and webinars
European Seminar 2013: Posters
…">Poster: Fraud and deceit in medical research [PDF 22KB] Poster: Authors’ awareness of publication ethics: An international survey [PDF 25KB]… - Case
Dual submission
_ Around one in five published papers are republished in substantial form. _ A study in the 80s found that over 10 per cent did not mention previous publication, but a second study at the end of the 90s suggested this figure was around 1%. _ It takes considerable time and effort to look at all the referenced papers to see if there is any overlap and then those are the published ones, not those… - Case
Possible duplicate publication?
A journal accepted a paper and then discovered that a very similar paper by the same authors had been published in another journal the previous year. The latter journal carried the piece as a short report while the former planned to publish it as a full paper. The full paper carries extended research on oral and maxillofacial surgeons while the short report looks only at attitudes of den… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: June 2022
…src="/files/council/dan-kulp-90x90.png" style="margin: 3px 9px; float: left; width: 90px; height: 90px;" />Dan Kulp, COPE Chair Read COPE Digest newsletter, June 2022, in which we launch the paper mills research report with STM and invite you to join the discussion on Dealing with complaints about the integrity of… - Case
“Inadvertent” duplicate publication
…3 Additional data had been added to the paper for one journal which had been omitted for the short report in the other journal.… - News
Wiley launch new ethics guidelines
Wiley has launched the second edition of its Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective. In the new edition, guidance has been added about whistle-blowers, animal research and clinical research, particularly around clinical trial registration. The press release can be read in full - News
Letter from the COPE co-Chairs: September 2018
…href="https://publicationethics.org/about/council/chris-graf">Chris Graf and Geri Pearson - Case
Attempted dual publication
The paper was withdrawn from both journals. The head of the institution formally apologised to both journal and gave sufficient explanation to make it apparent that a genuine mistake had obviously been made. He also added that he felt the corresponding author, as well as all the others,had learnt from this mistake. The breach of confidentiality was discussed by the editors of both journals… - Case
Patients with vitiligo treated with anti-fungal drugs by a general practitioner
A letter was submitted for publication in which a general practitioner described how he treated patients with vitiligo “simultaneously with an anti-fungal and anti-bacterial medicament over a prolonged period.”He has done this because:“As is now known,a fungus resembles the human being genetically and there is a possibility that a fungus can hide in the melanocyte (analogically as is being do… - Case
Duplication, revision and resubmission?
A manuscript was submitted which described the effect of a drug on cell turnover and apoptosis in a deletion mouse model of a common cancer. One of the reviewers noted that a very similar paper by the same authors had been published in another journal in the same specialty,and went to the trouble of underlining blocks of text that were identical in both papers. In one paper the authors had repo… - Case
Plagiarism or redundant publication?
A manuscript was submitted with a covering letter clearly stating the originality and unpublished nature of the work. The authors stated that the results had already been orally presented at a meeting the previous year. Before sending the manuscript for review the editors discovered that the manuscript contained 60% of the Materials and Methods text and 90% of the Results section of… - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: September 2022
…pleased by the interest we have received from institutions around the world and fully welcome their participation in future conversations around publication ethics. So, once again, enjoy Peer Review Week and I hope to see you at many of the events. Dan Kulp, COPE Chair - Event
COPE Forum: September 2023
COPE Members: join us for the COPE Forum where participants discuss publication ethics issues submitted by Members. The Forum will begin with a discussion on "Peer review models" before we ask participants for advice on Members' cases. REGISTER TODAY Submit a case to… - Case
Plagiarism
A manuscript submitted to journal X was remarkably similar to a paper already published in journal Y. The similarities were noticed by one of the peer reviewers for journal X. The paper has been rejected by journal X but the editor has now written to each of the authors asking for an explanation and has told them that if a reasonable explanation is not forthcoming, she will inform the dean of t… - Case
The author who wasn’t an author
A paper was submitted crediting three authors. The paper was sent to one of the journal’s regular statistical reviewers without noticing that she happened to be the second author. She wrote back to say that she had not been involved in writing the manuscript, nor had she seen this paper before. She did say, however, that she had supervised the computer input of the questionnaire data and that…